Bail is warranted where no specific overt act is attributed and investigation is complete.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 2, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from Crime No. 61/2026 of J.C. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, following an earlier quarrel, the petitioner and his younger brother assaulted and killed Vijay.

The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner’s brother stabbed Vijay; the petitioner was alleged to have been present at the scene.

The petitioner had been arrested on 4 April 2026, and the Trial Court rejected his bail application on 29 August 2026.

The investigation was complete, and the petitioner asserted that he had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the petitioner, accused No. 2, should be enlarged on regular bail in light of the evidence concerning his alleged role and the completion of the investigation.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged presence with accused No. 1, without a specific overt act attributed to him, warranted continued detention pending trial.

The petition was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1) (murder), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (joint liability for a criminal act) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The order cites no precedent or further articulated bail test; it assesses the petitioner’s alleged role, the status of the investigation, and his antecedents in deciding the application.

The Court noted that the eyewitness, CW28, described two persons restraining Vijay and one stabbing him, but attributed no specific overt act to the petitioner.

The evidence identified accused No. 1 as the person who stabbed Vijay, and the weapon was recovered at accused No. 1’s instance; the Court also noted that the eyewitness’s account corroborated the information reported by CW6.

Given the absence of a specific overt act attributed to the petitioner, the completion of the investigation, and the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents, the Court considered regular bail appropriate while leaving the allegations to be proved at trial.

Execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum;

Regular attendance at trial unless exempted;

No threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses;

No involvement in similar offences;

No leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.